Not while you are Human

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Ground

I am saying that actually there isn't any truth
there is only one reality but there is no truth in it.

The whole point of relative truth is that it's relative to the observer. So yes, that is your truth.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Baile

The whole point of relative truth is that it's relative to the observer. So yes, that is your truth.

That is not appropriately expressed because there is no truth, neither relative nor ultimate. And that expression itself is no truth but just an appropriate verbal expression.
In emptiness no emptiness can be found, so emptiness cannot be called 'truth'.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Ground

That is not appropriately expressed because there is no truth, neither relative nor ultimate.

Yes Ground. I understand that is what you believe. And that is your personal, subjective, relative truth.

[Baile]

A Christian believes Jesus is God and the savior of humankind.
A nihilist believes religion is fraudulent and life is has no purpose.

They are both correct because they both speak from a position of relative truth.

[Baile]

Here's what will happen in the future as humanity wakes up: We will recognize the reality of relative truth. And instead of arguing and trying to out-truth one another, we will find it much more interesting and productive to listen to each other's relative truth, in order to try and come to a unified and collective understanding of life, reality, humanness, spirit, and the like.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Baile

Yes Ground. I understand that is what you believe. And that is your personal, subjective, relative truth.

Well that is not appropriately expressed. you keep on projecting your view onto my words.

Of course you are free to project whatever you like. your freedom however does not remove my freedom to express my view appropiately to distinguish it from your inappapriate projections. Ok?

And 'view' in our context is only about the use of words. There is no claim of truth involved.
Why?
Because of this:
Believing something is by definition to hold it as being true and to hold something being true is by definition to hold it being existent from its own side.
If however a phenomenon cannot be found through rational analysis then it does by definition not exist although it appears when analysis is absent.
This is called 'the phenomen is not true' or 'the phenomenon does not inherently exist.

Therefore I do neither believe anything nor do I hold a relative truth because that would imply a relative claim of truth which is nonsense. Why? Human sentiment cannot differentiate between different kinds of levels of truth. But since nothing whatsoever can be found under rational analysis there is no truth at all.

See it is merely a matter of a system of how to apply language. There is no truth involved. Just take language as language and not as truth.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Ground

you keep on projecting your view onto my words.

There is no truth involved.

Your relative truth is I am projecting, and that there is no truth involved. None of that can be argued because it's yours. So I'll add to my list, and all three are correct:

A Christian believes Jesus is God and the savior of humankind.
A nihilist believes religion is fraudulent and life is has no purpose.
You neither believe anything nor hold a relative truth.

This now comes full circle back to William's comment, "I like to think there are as many realities." So it is also true that he is correct, even after I pointed out Hermeticism recognizes as well the singular-reality of absolute truth. Everyone holding their own relative truths, means there are in fact many realities.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by William 辰

I'm afraid this conversation isn't going anywhere.

Yes and I'm afraid this is the nature of intellectual-analytical dialogues (arguments in this case to be precise). And it's the norm rather than the exception. We're taught in life to think and argue, "I'm right and you're wrong." Whereas awakening is coming to the understanding that, "I choose everything I believe in, not because it's true, but because it's comfortable and reflects my current level of transitory consciousness. And therein lies the actual truth and real value of all my beliefs."

It also makes it pointless to enter into a discussion on a particular topic if one believes "the phenomenon does not inherently exist" - in this case the idea of truth. You can't expound on a phenomenon you don't believe exists. The best one can offer in that case is opinion and idle speculation, rather like a sceptic offering an analysis of why OBEs aren't real.

[Baile]

And finally of course, "the phenomenon [truth] does not inherently exist" is a truth. A belief stance and personal truth. Truth is an inescapable aspect of incarnation.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Baile

Your relative truth is I am projecting, and that there is no truth involved. None of that can be argued because it's yours.

you are wrong since I do not experience a truth when applying my words. Why? All is just conceptually imputed and empty of truth even this latest statement. There is actually an infinite regress implied.
Maybe you cannot apply language, listen or read, without this conditioned sentiment of 'truth' and therefore you are projecting your experience into my words?

Originally Posted by Baile

And finally of course, "the phenomenon [truth] does not inherently exist" is a truth. A belief stance and personal truth. Truth is an inescapable aspect of incarnation.

By definition it is neither truth nor belief but an appropriate linguistic expression in the sphere of the languge system I am applying. To you it may appear as if being a truth statement since you may be conditioned to deal with language in the context of truth sentiments only.

We may go on with that interminably due to the infinite regress implied

Object 0 = There is no truth at all.
Object 1 = Object 0 is necessarily not true either.
Object 2 = Object 1 is necessarily not true either.
...
Object n+1 = Object n is necessarily not true either.

Now this infinite regress is simply called 'emptiness [of truth]' by definition and this emptiness is called 'reality' by definition.


So you may see that since everything exists only through imputation there is no truth in any verbal expression and the objects expressed actually are not inherently different from the means of expression and that leads to what is commonly called 'non-duality'.